Lords Sitting of 8 December 1955

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Earl Cathcart—Took the Oath.
The Earl Waldegrave—Took the Oath.

THE BAN ON HEROIN
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the fact that except for small quantities for scientific purposes they have decided not to permit the manufacture and export of heroin after 31st December, 1955. and with reference to the answer they gave in this House on 27th April, 1955, that "adequate supplies of a perfectly good substitute for heroin are now available", they will state what in their opinion constitutes an adequate and equally effective substitute for heroin in all the varied cases for which it is prescribed by the medical and surgical professions in the United Kingdom.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the Government are advised that there are a number of other drugs which are considered to afford benefits comparable to those derived from heroin. The drugs selected must, of course, depend on the circumstances of the particular case to be treated. The two principal uses of heroin are to relieve pain and suppress cough. As regards analgesia—that is, the relief of pain—there are available, in addition to the opium alkaloids including papaveretum, a number of new and powerful analgesics such as methadone, pethidine and levorphan. Cough linctuses containing, for example, opium, morphine, methadone, codeine, or hydrocodone in appropriate dosage are as efficient as linctuses containing heroin.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask whether he is aware that there is an admitted cleavage of opinion in the medical profession on the subject of adequate substitutes for heroin? And may I further ask him whether he is aware that the Government, in banning heroin before conducting any clinical investigations into the possibilities of substitutes, are, in fact, ordering all members of the medical profession to use this or that drug, even if some of them think it is a totally inadequate and ineffective substitute for heroin in many cases of suffering and agonising pain?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am, of course, fully aware that there is a cleavage of opinion in this matter. On the other hand, perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has seen in this morning's issue of The Times newspaper a statement by Professor Löifier, a distinguished Swiss doctor, who is director of the Medical Hospital of the University of Zurich. The Professor is reported as saying:
"Heroin is absolutely unnecessary; its place can be taken by a great number of other opiates, which are less dangerous and do not lend themselves so easily to abuse. I have never used heroin and I never will."
That merely confirms the noble Viscount's opinion that there is a distinct cleavage of medical opinion on this subject. With regard to his second supplementary question, I will only say that that is a highly controversial point upon which we all hold different opinions which will no doubt be aired more extensively in your Lordships' House in the course of the debate which we shall be having next Tuesday on the Motion to be moved by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, is it not the fact that a very large number of doctors have never used heroin at all, and normally do not use it in the ordinary way?
LORD MANCROFT: I understand that to be so.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is it not the fact that a very large number of doctors constantly and continually use heroin, feeling that there is no substitute for it?
LORD MANCROFT: Certain doctors undoubtedly do. As to their numbers, I have no precise knowledge and I do not believe that the noble Viscount has either.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Would the noble Lord reflect that British people will probably prefer the opinions of British general practitioners who are in touch with people suffering from the agonising pain to which my noble friend has referred, to those of Swiss professors, however eminent, whom they do not know?
LORD HADEN-GUEST: A large number of doctor; in general practice do not use heroin at all. I have never used it. I have talked about this to many medical colleagues and I find that there are large numbers who never use it.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I have never used heroin nor am I an addict. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, naturally says that he has been advised on this matter—of course, he must be advised upon it. May I ask, having regard to the origin of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, whether steps have been taken to test the opinion of the Scottish doctors? Because there is in Scotland a very distinguished Royal College of Surgeons and a Royal College of Physicians, whose opinions in popular estimation I think have an equally high standing with those of our medical organisations in England. Have arty steps been specifically taken to find out their views and their wishes in this matter?
LORD MANCROFT: In answer to the supplementary question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, concerning Swiss doctors, I would, with respect, remind him that this heroin problem is a world problem. With regard to the question of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the advice given me, to which I referred, is not from one particular source. It represents a weight of opinion derived from evidence from various sources. Some of the most readily available of these sources are set out in an article in the Lancet, a copy of which is to be found in the Library of your Lordships' House. These opinions have been collated for the Government by the Chief Medical Officer. I am informed that Scottish opinion was canvassed, as well as English opinion.
EARL JOWITT: That is a very general reply. May I ask the noble Lord this specific question? Was the opinion of the Royal College of Surgeons in Scotland taken in any form? Was the opinion
1234
of the Royal College of Physicians in Scotland taken in any form? If not, who were the Scottish doctors who were consulted?
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid that I cannot answer rat question without notice. I can only inform the noble and learned Earl that ray information is that Scottish interests were consulted. I will find out what the specific interests were and let the noble and learned Earl know.
EARL JOWITT: I shall be very much obliged if the noble Lord will do that and let me have the information before our debate on my Motion on Tuesday next.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Would the noble Lord consider that, whilst addiction to heroin is a terrible addiction and as such is a world problem, proper use of the drug is primarily a problem for the individual sufferer and his medical adviser?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, I am fully aware of that point of view.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court
1.—(1) The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court shall be as follows, that is to say, jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the following questions or claims—
(a) any question as to the title to or ownership of a ship or of any share therein;
(f) any claim for loss of life or personal injury sustained in consequence of any defect in a ship or in her apparel or equipment or of the wrongful act, neglect or default

1235
of the owners or characters of a ship or of the master of crew thereof or of any other person in the employment of the owners or characters of a ship being an act, neglect or default in the navigation or management of the ship, in the loading, carriage or discharge of goods on, in or from the ship or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of passengers on, in or from the ship;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved in subsection (1) to leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) any claim to the possession or ownership of a ship or to the ownership of any share therein;".
The noble and learned Viscount said: It may be convenient if I say before I move the first of these Amendments on the part of the Bill that deals with the Admiralty jurisdiction, that these Amendments have all been discussed with and approved of by the noble and learned Lord the President of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division.
This Amendment, the first on the Marshalled List, is in essence a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that a claim by the owner of a ship to have possession of it returned to him—for example, by a demise charterer whose charter had expired—can be enforced by proceedings in rem. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (1) (f), to leave out "in the employment of the owners or charterers of a ship" and insert:
"for whose wrongful acts, neglects or defaults the owners or charterers of a ship are responsible,".
The noble and learned Viscount said: As printed in the Bill, this paragraph refers to the acts, neglect or default of owners, charterers, the master, crew or any other person in the employment of the owners or charterers. The effect of the Amendment is to widen the range of persons whose actions, neglect or default can be the basis of a claim covered by the paragraph to include persons for whose acts, neglect or default the shipowners and charterers of a ship may be responsible, even though the shipowner or charterer may not be their employer. May I take
1236
the example of a pilot? I hope the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, did not think I had widened it to include those who form the title of one of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas. In this case I intended to say "pilot" and not "pirate."
Amendment moved—
Page 2 line 5, leave out from ("person") to the end of line 6 and insert ("for whose wrongful acts, neglects or defaults the owners or charterers of a ship are responsible,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: To use a nautical term, the noble and learned Viscount has taken the wind out of my sails "by his statement that the President of the Court has approved these Amendments. None the less, I should like to ask him about this Amendment, on which I have some slight reservation. The noble and learned Viscount regards this Amendment as enlarging the scope of the clause. I may be quite mistaken, but on reading it it struck me that the Amendment limited the scope. The clause deals with actions which are brought in the Admiralty Division of the High Court in respect of claims, as set out in paragraph (f), and provides that there must first of all be a defect in the ship or in its power or equipment, and secondly that there must be a wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the owner or of any other person, the master or crew, in the employment of the owner or charterer of a ship. The Amendment then provides
"for whose wrongful acts, neglects or defaults the owners or charterers of a ship are responsible."
That seems to me to limit the class of person to those who are employed by the owners of the ship. Reading the Amendment with the paragraph, it seems to me that there are two classes of employees: those for whom the owner is responsible and those for whose actions he is not responsible. I found it difficult to visualise such persons, but the noble and learned Viscount has instanced a pilot. Subject to what the noble and learned Viscount may say, it seems to me that by the addition of these words he is cutting out the pilot. I do not say that the Amendment necessarily rules out an action against the pilot, but it could not be brought in the Admiralty Division—

1237
and the bringing of actions in that Division is the purpose of this clause. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would explain that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the general point, I am afraid I did not make it clear that the Amendment leaves out the words
"in the employment of the owners or charterers of a ship"
and therefore it will read with the words to be added simpliciter. It is difficult to imagine anyone the employment of the owners or charterers of a ship who would not be caught by the words
"for whose wrongful acts, defects or defaults the owners or charterers of a ship are responsible,"
because the only way a person in their employment could get out of that would be by stepping completely outside his employment. That is what I meant by saying that the Amendment widened the scope.
So far as bringing an action against the pilot is concerned, in the ordinary way the persons responsible for acts, neglects or defaults would be more worthy of powder and shot than the person himself. May I remind the noble Lord of a branch of the law with which he and I were very familiar at one time, because in happy bygone days I acted for the noble Lord in that type of case? He will remember that under the dangerous trades section of the Factory Acts there was a section dealing with ships in dock. I merely take it as an analogy. He will remember that in that section there were provisions for saying in every case on whom the liability would fall for enforcing the regulations. Speaking from recollection, I think I am right in saying that a case can be found where the responsibility rests on the shipping company to see that the regulations are enforced although the person concerned is not in their employment. Therefore we thought that this provision widens the possible right of anyone who might have a claim. I am still convinced that we have improved it: but the noble Lord has expressed doubt, and if he sees any development of this doubt I shall be pleased to look into the matter before the next stage.
EARL JOWITT: Would the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor
1238
remind me of what is the law on this matter? When I passed my Bar Examination, and I suppose when he passed his, compulsory pilotage was a defence. A shipowner had to employ a pilot, and if the pilot was neglectful in the navigation of the ship, the owner was not responsible, on the plea that he had been made to employ the pilot. I think that has now been altered, but I do not know where or when. I think that now the liability for the wrongful act of a pilot does rest on the owners of a ship. If that is so, I understand that this Bill does not increase the ambit of liability but merely says in what cases the court shall have jurisdiction. The noble and learned Viscount referred to pirates. What is the position if a ship is seized by a pirate who navigates the ship into harbour, and in the course of that navigation either runs into something or does some damage? Is the owner to be made liable for that damage?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was trying to find in the recesses of my memory any case where that had happened, but my memory has played me false. I can only say that even the most altruistic and kindest of pirates; like Captain Hook, might have an accident while engaged on a frolic of his own.
LORD SILKIN: I still feel that these words may be regarded as limiting those actions which may come before the Admiralty Division. A man may find he is in the wrong court, as the person really liable is ruled out by this Amendment. But I gladly accept the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount to look at this again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Here the paragraph as printed refers to the loss of life from personal injury sustained in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of passengers. The Amendment extends this provision to persons generally so as to include, for example, those visiting a ship. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("passengers") and insert ("persons").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Mode of exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I might discuss this Amendment and the next together, because they concern the same point. These Amendments deal with the conditions under which a ship or aircraft can be arrested for a claim which does not give rise to a maritime lien on it. Under the Bill as printed, the condition is that the person personally liable must, when the action is brought, have possession of the ship or, in the case of a sister ship, possession and ownership. Under the Amendments the test will be ownership in all cases, possession being irrelevant. I think your Lordships will agree, when you consider this point, that it is right. The test of possession seems wholly wrong. It would prevent an arrest where the ship or aircraft was in the possession of a repairer with a "possessory lien" for his bill. There is no reason why an arrest should not be allowed in such a case, as the court would protect the rights of the repairer when it came to distributing the proceeds of the sale of the ship or aircraft. Conversely, the Bill as printed would enable an arrest to take place where the claim was against a demise-charterer and not the owner. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out lines 19 to 24 and insert—

("(a) that ship, if at the time when the action is brought it is beneficially owned as respects all the shares therein by that person; or

(b) any other ship which, at the time when the action is brought, is beneficially owned as aforesaid.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("in the possession of") and insert ("beneficially owned by").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Jurisdiction in personam of courts in collision and other similar cases]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The purpose of this Amendment is merely to clarify the meaning of paragraph (b) of subsection (1). As the paragraph is at
1240
present worded, it might be held to include only claims arising out of collisions within inland waters in England and Wales, or within such limits of a port as lie within England and Wales, thereby excluding actions arising out of a collision which, although within the limits of a port, was outside England and Wales which might be held to mean outside low water. It is desired to include causes of action arising anywhere within the limits of a port, even if those limits extend beyond England and Wales, provided that the port itself is in England and Wales. The new wording is intended to achieve this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
("(b) the cause of action arose within inland waters of England and Wales or within the limits of a port of England and Wales; or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this Amendment, which deals with the same point.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, at end insert—
("and 'limits of a port' means the limits thereof as fixed by or under the Act in question or, as the case may be, by the relevant charter or custom;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): With the permission of the Committee, I will, when there are consecutive clauses that have no Amendments set down to them, move them together, both in regard to this Bill and other Bills coming up this afternoon, and I will ask any noble Lord who may wish to say anything on any of those clauses to take that opportunity of doing so.
Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Supplemental and transitional provisions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this Amendment. This qualification is now required because of the proposed amendment to line 19 on this page to provide that "goods" include baggage. This definition is appropriate to "goods" in paragraph (g) of Clause 1 (1) but not, for example, to paragraph (m) of that subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, after ("Act") insert (",unless the context otherwise requires,")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have already referred to this Amendment. It has been held in some cases that passengers' baggage is not goods since it is not carried as goods, but merely as an ancillary operation to the carrying of passengers. The definition makes it clear that paragraph (g) of Clause 1 (1) includes claims for loss or damage to baggage.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 19, at end insert ("'goods' includes baggage;")—t(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL JOWITT: I should like to know a little about this point. The word "baggage" is a word in common use nowadays which means a mischievous young female. Am I to understand that she is to be included in future under the word "goods"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If we were anywhere else I should ask the noble and learned Earl for his considered construction of the phrase "a nice piece of goods," but I doubt whether at the moment it would be proper to ask him so difficult a question. The positive explanation is that passengers' baggage is not "goods" since it is not carried as goods but is merely an ancillary matter to the carriage of passengers. The object of the definition is to make clear that paragraph (g) of Clause 1 (1) includes a claim for loss or damage. I am sorry to give the noble and learned Earl so pedestrian an explanation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Section 421 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, provides that any rules made under the authority of a local Act for the avoidance of collisions shall have full effect. Subsection (2) of that section further provides that Her Majesty in Council may in certain circumstances make rules relating to navigation in specified waters, and that these rules shall have the same force as if they were part of the collision regulations. This Amendment makes it clear that the rules referred to in Section 421 of the 1894 Act have the same force as collision regulations for the purposes of this Bill, also. I beg to move.
Amendment Moved—
Page 8, line 22, at end insert ("or any such rules as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section four hundred and twenty-one of that Act or any rules made under subsection (2) of the said section four hundred and twenty-one").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Appointment of deputy district registrar]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move this Amendment. The reference to liabilities of a district registrar in Clause 12 (4) is inappropriate. I am sorry that the subsection erroneously follows the wording of Section 26 of the County Courts Act, 1934, which relates to the powers and liabilities of deputy county court registrars. They are responsible for the execution of judgments and may incur liabilities for wrongful acts done in the course of execution. Your Lordships might consider as a comparison Section 144 of the County Courts Act, 1934. District registrars have no such responsibilities and, accordingly, incur no such liabilities. Therefore we want to make this correction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 5, leave out from ("powers") to ("as") in line 6.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Extension of power to make rules of court, and consequential and connected repeals]:
3.31 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As drafted. Clause 16 (2) gives power by rule to restrict the right of appeal against decisions of official referees to appeals on questions of law. This leaves a doubt whether rules giving a right of appeal on questions of fact could limit the right to a particular class of cases only. The Amendment removes this doubt. I should like to remind your Lordships that a limited right of appeal on fact was recommended by the Evershed Committee to this limited extent—namely, only where a party has stated at the beginning of the reference that he desires to have a right of appeal on fact from the referee's decision. The Amendment puts the vires of any rule which might be made to implement this recommendation beyond doubt.

1243
I draw attention, as I did on Second Reading, to the fact that in this Bill we are trying to implement those recommendations of the Evershed Committee which require legislation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, after ("provide") insert ("either generally or to a limited extent").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Temporary appointments of persons to act as fudges]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is little more than a drafting Amendment because the qualification which is now to be inserted was left out of the clause in error. Section 12 (1) of the principal Act lays down as the qualifications for a deputy that he should either have previously held the office of judge or be a barrister of at least seven years' standing. There should be no difference in the qualifications of deputies under that section and the persons to be appointed to act for a judge under Clause 22, and it would be inconvenient if it were not possible to appoint ex-judges in both cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 45, after ("he") insert ("has previously held the office of judge or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: Of course, I have not the slightest objection to a former judge acting as a deputy, but I wonder whether those words are really required, even though they are in the principal Act. The qualification is for a barrister of at least seven years' standing, and I cannot conceive of a person who has been a judge being a barrister of less than seven years' standing. Indeed, I imagine that in order to be a judge he must have had at least seven years' standing, but I do not know the relevant section. If that is so, is it really necessary to add these words? Are they not covered already by the words, "a barrister of at least seven years' standing"? The second point is a minor one. Is it intended to mean a county court judge? There are judges and judges. I take it that if he were a judge in an agricultural show, that would not qualify him to be a deputy judge. Could you not say what kind of judge
1244
you have in mind if those words are necessary?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the second point the noble Lord raised, I thought the provision was quite clear, but as he has raised it again I shall be pleased to look at it. On the first point, the noble Lord will remember that the Act of 1934 lays down as the qualifications for a deputy that he shall previously have held the office of judge. That being a County Court Act, clearly he would be a county court judge or a barrister of at least seven years' standing. I think it is always safer to follow the principal Act. I am not prepared to say that the noble Lord is wrong, because I have a high respect for his opinion, but I think it is always better, when one is drafting in pari materia, to follow the Act, and I ask the noble Lord to allow me to do so. I think it is safer, but I will not go any further than that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Goods protected from seizure in execution]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out Clause 28. The noble and learned Viscount said: It may be convenient if we deal with this Amendment to leave out Clause 28 and, if I may speak on it, with the new clause which your Lordships will find on the next page which I desire to insert after Clause 37. The object of these two Amendments is to replace Clause 28, which raises the limit on the value of goods exempted from execution in the county court, by a new clause applying to execution in the High Court as well as in the county court. The Evershed Committee agreed with the Austin Jones Committee that, in view of the fall in the value of money, the present limit of £5 on the value of goods exempted from execution should be substantially raised. They thought that whatever figure was taken for the county court should be applied also to the High Court. That means that different Acts have to be affected, and, as I say, I am introducing that position in the High Court too. Clearly, it is a matter of common sense that the figure of £5 ought to be raised, and the position is that the new clause to be inserted after Clause 37 is

1245
the same as Clause 28, except that it includes a reference to Section 8 of the Small Debts Act. 1845, in addition to Section 121 of the County Courts Acts, 1934. That brings in the High Court as well as the county court. It says that the sum may be raised to £20, or such larger amount as may be prescribed by order of the Lord Chancellor. Although this Amendment is in substance merely an Amendment to Clause 28, a new clause is necessary because Clause 28 appears in Part III of the Bill which applies solely to the county courts. That is the only reason that l put the new clause down. I beg to move—
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 28.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power of courts to impose charges on land of judgment debtor]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is really a drafting Amendment. The words to be inserted make it clear that the judicial determinations mentioned in subsection (4) are not an exhaustive list. For instance, a decreet of a Scottish court, although not referred to in terms, falls within the subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 42, after ("award") insert ("(however called)".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 36 gives the county court power to enforce judgments of a county court by imposing a charge on the judgment debtor's land, but omits to enable the court similarly to enforce judgments of other courts removed into the county court for enforcement. The Amendment cures the omission. Your Lordships will remember that judgments of sheriffs' courts of Scotland and inferior courts of Northern Ireland may, under the Inferior Courts Judgments Extension Act, 1882, be registered for enforcement in a county court in England. Judgments of local courts for amounts not exceeding £20 may be removed into the county court for enforcement under Section 6 of the Borough and Local Courts of Record Act, 1872. I think this Amendment fills up a gap
1246
which was troublesome before. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 3, after ("Court') insert ("or the county court").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is the same as No. 16. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 4, after ("Court") insert ("or the county court").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Receivers]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This again is really a drafting Amendment. The words to be deleted are intended to describe an order which may be made by the court under Clause 36. The description is wrong as an order under that clause does not enforce the charge arising from a judgment but imposes a charge in order to enforce the judgment. The Amendment corrects this mistake. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 16, leave out from ("section") to second ("a") in line 17 and insert ("imposing a charge for the purpose of enforcing").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 37 to insert the following new clause:
Goods protected from seizure in execution

".—(1) In section eight of the Small Debts Act, 1845, and section one hundred and twenty-one of the County Courts Act, 1934 (which protect wearing apparel, bedding and tools to the value of five pounds from seizure in execution) for the words "the value of five pounds" there shall be substituted the words "the prescribed value".

(2) The prescribed value for the purposes of the said sections eight and one hundred and twenty-one shall be twenty pounds or such larger amount as may be prescribed by order of the Lord Chancellor, and section nine of the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, and section four of the Law of Distress (Amendment) Act, 1888 (which provide, by reference to the said section one hundred and twenty-one, a similar protection in the case of certain distresses ordered by a court of summary jurisdiction and in the case of distress for rent) shall have effect accordingly.

(3) The proviso to section one hundred and fifty-two of the County Courts Act, 1934

1247

(which relates to execution under an administration order and protects household goods, wearing apparel, bedding and tools to the value of twenty pounds) shall cease to have effect, and section one hundred and twenty-one of that Act shall apply accordingly on an execution under the said section one hundred and fifty-two.

(4) Any order of the Lord Chancellor under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order of the Lord Chancellor.

(5) The power of the Lord Chancellor to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

(6) Any such statutory instrument shall be laid before Parliament after being made."

The noble and learned Viscount said: I have already described why this new clause is necessary. I think your Lordships will allow me to deal with it formally after that explanation. I beg to move that this new clause be inserted.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Execution of High Court judgments and orders in county court]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, after ("award") insert ("(however called)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 39 to insert the following new clause:
Judgments of courts outside England and Wales
"—Section five of the Debtors Act, 1869, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, shall have effect as if—

(a) any judgment of the High Court of Northern Ireland or decreet of the Court of Session a certificate of which has been registered in the High Court under section one or section three of the Judgments Extension Act, 1868; and

(b) any judgment, as defined in Part II of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, which has been registered in the High Court under the said Part II; and

(c) any judgment, as defined in the Inferior Courts Judgments Extension Act, 1882. a certificate of which has been registered in the High Court or in a county court under that Act,
1248
were a judgment of the High Court or, as the case may be, of that county court, and proceedings may be taken under those Acts accordingly."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This new clause enables proceedings under the Debtors Act, 1869, and the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, to be founded on certain judgments of courts in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth, which have been registered in the High Court in England for the purpose of enforcement. This is a curious lacuna and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words about it. Under the Judgments Extension Act, 1868, judgments of the High Court of Northern Ireland and decreets of the Court of Session of Scotland may be registered in the High Court in England. The High Court has the same control and jurisdiction over a registered judgment or decreet as it has over a judgment of its own, but subject to these words:
"but in so far only as relates to execution under this Act."
These are the words of Section 4, and they have been interpreted as excluding enforcement by means of a judgment summons under the Debtors Act, 1869, since the power of committing a debtor, or of ordering him to pay by instalments under that Act, is not execution. Similarly, bankruptcy proceedings cannot be brought on a registered judgment or decreet because the proceedings are not, strictly speaking, a form of execution.
The Scottish authorities have pointed out that judgments of the English High Court registered under the Act of 1868 for enforcement in the Court of Session are, under Scots law, enforceable in every respect like judgments obtained in Scotland, and have requested that the Scottish decreets registered in England should be given the same treatment. I propose at the proper stage to take similar steps to make the position exactly the same with regard to Northern Ireland. So far as the Commonwealth is concerned, the enforcement by the High Court of judgments of Commonwealth Courts registered under Part II of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, is also restricted to execution in the same terms as those used in the Act of 1868, and the enforcement of judgments of inferior courts of Scotland or Northern Ireland registered for enforcement in the High Court or the county court, under the Inferior

1249
Courts Judgments Extension Act, 1882, is restricted to execution in terms which have the same effect. This clause enables proceedings by judgment summons or in bankruptcy to be founded on all these judgments. I am sure the position ought to be reciprocal. It is part of the ordinary comity between the countries in the Commonwealth. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I should like a word of explanation. First, as regards a judgment summons, I take it that the clause means that if a debtor who is normally resident in the Commonwealth or in Scotland happens to find himself in England, then he can be dealt with provided that the judgment is registered in England. That seems to me fairly simple and understandable. But in the case of bankruptcy does it apply only to the goods which he happens to have in England? How would the bankruptcy operate? Is he declared bankrupt in this country in respect of goods he may have in the Commonwealth, or in respect of goods in this country alone? It does not seem very clear to me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, it would also apply to the person who is resident in this country who has had a judgment given against him in Scotland or the Commonwealth; once it is registered and the bankruptcy notice is given and the man becomes bankrupt, he would certainty be bankrupt in regard to any of his property here. As I understand it, it would then be for his trustee to try to get into the assets of the bankruptcy any property which he had in the Commonwealth, if that could be done. That is the way it would work. Of course, with a judgment summons he would be brought up in the ordinary way for an examination as to his means.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Power to extend Part IV to inferior courts]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause on goods protected from seizure in execution which is to be inserted in Part IV. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 33, after ("Act") insert (",which are not otherwise applicable").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42:
Jurisdiction in relation to collisions, etc., in inland waters and ports
42.—(1) It shall be competent for any court having Admiralty jurisdiction to entertain, as against any defender, an action to which this section applies if the occurrence out of which the action arose took place—

(a) within the area for which the court acts, and

(b) within inland waters or within the limits of a port,

notwithstanding that the defender would not, apart from this section, be subject to the jurisdiction of the court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In this Amendment we are getting on to the portion of the Bill which deals with the Admiralty jurisdiction in Scotland. This Amendment is really verbal. It is designed partly to draw attention to the qualifications in the following provisions of this Part of the Act, Clause 44, and partly to substitute for the words
"it shall be competent for a court to entertain"
the much more explicit phrase:
"a court shall have jurisdiction to entertain."
I think it improves the drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 4, leave out line 4 and insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act any court having Admiralty jurisdiction shall have").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all the words after "applies" and to insert:
"but only if—

(a) the defender has his habitual residence or a place of business in the area for which the court acts, or

(b) the cause of action arose in the area for which the court acts and either within inland waters or within the limits of a port, or

(c) an action arising out of the same incident or series of incidents is proceeding in the court or has been heard and determined by the court, or

1251

(d) the defender has prorogated the jurisdiction of the court, or

(e) the jurisdiction of the court over the defender has been established by means of the arrest of a ship or a share in a ship."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment, together with that to omit Clause 43, which is Amendment No. 25, results in a positive and consolidated statement of the circumstances in which the courts will have jurisdiction in the cases in question. I think this is clearer than the provisions of the Bill as introduced, which effect alterations in the existing law but do not re-state what is unaltered. The Amendment also brings the Bill into closer alignment with the Convention by using as nearly as possible the same language as is used in the Convention. If I may refer the Committee to this matter, paragraph (a) corresponds to Article 1 (1) (a) of the Convention; paragraph (b) to Article 1 (1) (c); and paragraph (c) to Article 3 (2) of the Convention. Paragraph (d) re-states existing law and, so far as the Convention is concerned, is covered by Article 2. Paragraph (e) corresponds to Article 1 (1) (b) of the Convention. At present jurisdiction can be established over a defender by the arrest within the court's area of any movable property belonging to the defender. A ground of jurisdiction altogether abolished by the Bill, so far as the cases in question are concerned, is the ownership of an interest in heritable—that is, real—property situated within the court's area. In the Bill as introduced this appears in Clause 43. I think this is not only a tidying of the Bill but is much clearer, and sets out the law in the way that I have described. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 6, leave out from ("if") to the end of line 11 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I congratulate the Government and the draftsmen on introducing this Amendment. I will not call it an innovation but at any rate it is unusual to find advantage taken of the amendment of the law to set out the law afresh in a clear way so that it all appears in the Statute. Except in consolidation measures that is somewhat unusual, and I commend and recommend it as a course to be taken in future legislation whenever it may be possible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We shall try to carry out his advice.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment prevents proceedings from being brought in Scotland while proceedings are pending in any court outside Scotland. It implements Article 1 (3) of the Collision Convention, and it is new so far as it goes beyond the general effect of a plea of forum non conveniens. I commend it to the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 11, at end insert—
("() No court in Scotland shall entertain as against any defender an action to which this section applies until any proceedings previously brought by the pursuer in any court outside Scotland against the same defender in respect of the same incident or series of incidents have been discontinued or otherwise come to an end.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on the use of the word "incidents" in the new paragraph (c) which was accepted a few moments ago. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 13, leave out ("occurrences") and insert ("incidents").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is necessary because in the case of certain harbours in Scotland the power to make charges is derived not from an Act of Parliament but from a charter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 28, after ("Act") insert ("or charter").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment corresponds with the English Amendment as to the limits of a port which I mentioned to the Committee earlier on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 30, at end insert ("and 'limits of a port' means the limits thereof as fixed by or under the Act in question or, as the case may be, by the relevant charter or custom").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is intended to make it quite clear that the provisions of this clause do not apply to real actions under the law of Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 34, at end insert—
("() For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that any reference in this section to an action for payment of reparation does not include a reference to an action to make good a lien.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Restriction of jurisdiction based on ownership of interest in, or possession of, heritable property, and on arrestment of moveable property]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is proposed that this clause should be left out. The substance of the clause is now incorporated in Clause 42, as I explained when I was dealing with an earlier Amendment. We have been able to save a little print and study by leaving out this clause, and I beg so to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 43.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Arrest of ships on the dependence of an action or in rem]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a small point, that the appropriate word in Scottish law should be "issued" and not "granted," as in the Bill: it is simply a correction. I beg lo move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 9, leave out ("granted") and insert ("issued").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 13, leave out ("granted") and insert ("issued").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment deals with the point of the case of a warrant to arrest on the dependence of an action—that is, while the action is pending, and as your Lordships will see it speaks for itself. The two exceptions are where the ship is the ship
1254
with which the action is concerned or the shares in the ship are beneficially owned by the defender against whom the conclusion is directed. I drew your Lordships' attention to this matter on Amendment No. 28, and I need not trouble you with it again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 14, at end insert ("and in the case of a warrant to arrest on the dependence of an action, unless either—

(a) the ship is the ship with which the action is concerned, or

(b) all the shares in the ship are beneficially owned by the defender against whom that conclusion is directed.") — (The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment contains the many words which your Lordships will see on the Marshalled List, and deals with the position in regard to the various matters mentioned there. Your Lordships will remember that this clause corresponds to the English provision; which I mentioned when dealing with an earlier clause, and I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with an elaborate discussion of the Amendment. There are some differences in t he law of Scotland, and we have tried, I believe successfully, to fit these in carefully with the contents of the Convention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 18, leave out from ("injury") to end of line l9 and insert ("sustained in consequence of any defect in a ship or in her apparel or equipment or of the wrongful act, neglect or default of the owners or charterers of a ship or of the master or crew thereof or of any other person for whose wrongful acts, neglects or defaults the owners or charterers of a ship are responsible, being an act, neglect or default in the navigation or management of the ship, in the loading, unloading or discharge of goods on, in or from the ship or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of persons on, in or from the ship;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This and the following Amendment might conveniently be discussed together. The words proposed to be left out from line 43 were taken from Article (1) (i) (c) of the Arrest Convention, but from the context it is clear that the real meaning is, as indicated by the proposed Amendment, to insert the words "ownership cc right to possession." Both the Scottish

1255
and the English sections are now in accord with the real meaning of the Convention, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 43, leave out ("title to or ownership") and insert ("ownership or right to possession").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I formally move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 44, after ("or") insert ("as to the ownership of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 10, leave out ("action") and insert ("proceedings").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 12, leave out ("the court may grant a warrant") and insert ("a warrant may be issued").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 19, leave out ("it shall not be competent to grant") and insert ("there shall not be issued").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 31, leave out ("granted by virtue of this section") and insert ("issued by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 33, leave out ("granted") and insert ("issued").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Under the existing law a ship may be arrested only when it is in harbour or at a roadstead. This Amendment makes it clear that none of the other provisions of the section shall be taken to disturb this rule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 39, at end insert—
("() Nothing in this section shall authorise the arrest, whether on the dependence of an action or in rem, of a ship while it is on passage."}—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 [Interpretation of Part V]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In case any of your Lordships are anxious to learn what is a "pecuniary conclusion," I may tell you that this conclusion is the end of the summons which starts proceedings under Scots law. A pecuniary conclusion is one that claims a sum of money, better known to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and myself under the sublime name of "costs." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 11, at end insert ("and pecuniary conclusion 'does not include a conclusion for expenses").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This corresponds to the English Amendment, Clause 9, which I explained fully when it arose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 30, at end insert ("or any such rules as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section four hundred and twenty-one of that Act or any rules made under subsection (2) of the said section four hundred and twenty-one").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, again, corresponds to the English Amendment which excited the interest of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 30, at end insert ("'goods' includes baggage;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after Clause 48 to insert the following new clause:
Modification of Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933, in relation to certain parts of her Majesty's dominions.
"49. Where an Order in Council is made extending Part I of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933, to a part of Her Majesty's dominions or other territory to which Part II of the Administration of Justice Act, 1920, extends, the said Part I shall, in relation to that part of Her Majesty's dominions or other territory, have effect as if—

(a) the expression "judgment" included an award in proceedings on an arbitration if the award has, in pursuance of the law in force in the place where it was made, become enforceable in the same manner as a judgment given by a court in that place;

(b) the fact that a judgment was given before the coming into operation of the Order did not prevent it from being a judgment to which the said Part I applies, but the time limited for the registration of a judgment were, in the case of a judgment so given, twelve months from the date of the judgment or such longer period as may he allowed by the High Court in England and Wales, the Court of Session in Scotland, or the Court in Northern Ireland;

(c) any judgment registered in any of the said courts under the said Part II before the coming into operation of the Order had been registered in that court under the said Part I and anything done in relation thereto under the said Part II or any rules of court or other provisions applicable to the said Part II had been done under the said Part I of the corresponding rules of court or other provisions applicable to the said Part I."

The noble and learned Viscount said: I hope I shall not detain your Lordships for very long, but this is a somewhat important Amendment, because it amends the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933, so as to remove defects which have prevented its extension to those Commonwealth countries with which arrangements for reciprocal enforcement already existed prior to 1933 under the Administration of Justice Act, 1920. To put it shortly, it is one of those curious points where the Act of 1933 was taking the place of the Act of 1920 but, owing to the absence of suitable transitional provisions, it has not been possible to use the later Act. We are here trying to make that possible, Your Lordships will see that paragraph (a) of the new clause in effect provides that, in relation to Commonwealth countries to which the 192.0 Act has been applied, the 1933 Act is to operate on arbitral awards in the same way as on judgments, provided the awards
1258
are enforceable like judgments by the law of the place where they were made. Paragraph (b) makes the 1933 Act apply to judgments given before as well as after the coming into operation of an. Order in Council extending the Act to a country to which the 1920 Act has been applied.
As I informed your Lordships, a transitional provision of this kind is needed because Section 7 (2) of the 1933 Act provides that as soon as an Order in Council is made extending the Act to any part of the Commonwealth, the 1920 Act shall cease to have effect. Paragraph (c) provides that judgments registered under the 1920 Act at the time of the coming into operation of an Order in Council under the 1933 Act are to be treated as if registered under the 1933 Act, and compliance with the rules applicable to the earlier Act is to satisfy the requirements of any rules under the later Act. I have deliberately kept this explanation as short as I can. I pause for a moment to thank your Lordships for giving time to discussing the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree with me that it is unfortunate that when a mistake of this sort is made and a lacuna is left it is so difficult to find Parliamentary time to fill it up. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing it to me this afternoon. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 48 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: We are all very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has explained these very difficult provisions. They are difficult for one who has some slight experience of the law, and I imagine they are indeed somewhat more difficult for those who have not. I should like to ask the noble Viscount this question. I take it that the purpose of this new clause is to enable judgments which in the past, for one reason or another, have not been capable of being enforced, at long last to be enforced in this country. This will particularly apply to judgments which were given before 1933—or, at any rate, may well do so. I assume that there is no time limit for the enforcement of these judgments, and that a judgment which, for one reason or another, has not been capable of being carried into effect because of the lacuna is not now incapable

1259
of being enforced because of the time that has elapsed. But are any further words necessary to make that quite clear?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that any words are necessary, but, again, I shall be pleased to make absolutely sure of the point. It arises really on matters rather of procedure. It was possible to enforce judgments, but only under the 1920 Act. The extraordinary circumstance is that Part II of the Act of 1920 provided a method of reciprocal enforcement of judgment between Commonwealth countries. It was extended by Order in Council to many parts of the Commonwealth between 1920 and 1933, including Australia and New Zealand. Then, in 1932, a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Justice Greer, as he then was (afterwards a Member of your Lordships' House as Lord Fairfield), considered reciprocal enforcement of judgments and reported in favour of a uniform system of reciprocal enforcement for both foreign and Commonwealth countries, and this was embodied in Part I of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act of 1933. Section 7 of the 1933 Act provides for its extension to Commonwealth countries by Order in Council. The Act replaces the 1920 Act in any country to which it is extended, and by a general Order in Council made in 1933 (under powers conferred by Section 7 (1)) Part II of the Act of 1920 can no longer be extended to any new part of the Commonwealth. But in the event—this is the extraordinary point—the 1933 Act has never been extended to any Commonwealth country to which the 1920 Act had previously been applied because of the absence of suitable transitional provisions. That is what we are doing to-day. I will certainly do everything I can to make sure with regard to the point which Lord Silkin has raised, and if any difficulty arises I will inform the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Short title, repeal, extent and commencement]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next two Amendments are consequential on what I have explained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 37, after ("Part V") insert ("and section (Modification of Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933, in relation to certain parts of Her Majesty's dominions)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("in") and insert ("Section (Modification of Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1933, in relation to certain parts of Her Majesty's dominions) of this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland, but save as aforesaid this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland only"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the proceedings of your Lordships' House in order to inform your Lordships that if we have made the necessary progress with our Business we hope to adjourn for the Christmas Recess at the close of the sitting on Wednesday, December 21. We shall resume our sittings for Public Business on Tuesday, January 24.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for that statement, and particularly for the last sentence. But would the noble Viscount kindly explain what he means by his reference to our making sufficient progress with our Business, so that we may know what we have to aim at?
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I think it depends really upon how quickly matters go in another place, because there is certain legislation that we must get through.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Safety of pupils going to and from school]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): Your Lordships may remember that Clause 1 gives power to education authorities to do work to improve the safety of private roads used by pupils. The expression "private road" is defined as meaning:
"any road, street or park other than a public road, and includes bridges over which a private road passes."
The Association of County Councils have represented that it should be made clear that fords are included in private roads. The purpose of the Amendment is to secure the inclusion of fords. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, after ("includes") insert ("a ford and").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
LORD GREENHILL: Does the noble Lord not think it would be better if, instead of "ford and bridges," the Amendment read "fords and bridges"? Why singular in this case and plural in the other?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It appears that the drafting authorities consider that the words are quite explicit as they stand.
LORD GREENHILL: Is it not open to another interpretation—namely, that the expression "private roads" means any road…and includes roads on which there is a ford and bridges but not a road where there are fords and bridges. Is there any reason why it should not be both?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I will look into the point the noble Lord has raised.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
Salaries of Teachers
"10. For subsection (2) of section seventy-nine of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(2) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall intimate his intention to make such regulations to a Council which has among its objects the making of recommendations with regard to salaries of teachers being a council composed as to one hall of its members of persons appointed in equal numbers by him and by the education authorities and as to one half of its members of persons appointed by the teachers employed by the education authorities with in independent chairman appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session. The constitution of the said Council shall be agreed between the parties represented thereon or failing such agreement shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State and shall make provision for a reference to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal in any case where the members, of the Council are unable to agree on their recommendations to the Secretary of State and the recommendations of the Council or the findings of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal as the case may be shall he binding on the parties represented on the Council.'"
The noble Lord said: In what I wish to say to your Lordships I know that I may be transgressing the general rules that very properly have been laid down by your Lordships' House, but every rule knows its exception upon occasion and, as a Scotsrnan, I feel that I cannot rise to address your Lordships on a purely Scottish piece of business without mentioning the name of a most distinguished Scotsman who has so lately passed from our midst I refer to Sidney Herbert, Baron Elphinstone, who until his death was Lord Clerk Register of Scotland and Keeper of the Signet since 1944, Chancellor of the Order of the Thistle since 1949, and who held the honourable position of Lord High Commissioner to the. General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1923 and 1924, and was Captain General of the Royal Company of Archers, The Queen's Bodyguard in Scotland, from 1935 to 1933. His years had recently prevented him from coining much to your Lordships' House, of which he had been a Member since 1893, which means that when he first came here he took his oath of allegiance to Queen Victoria.
That seems to me to be a great record. But we have had the privilege of enjoying his services in the execution of the duties of his high offices in Scotland.
"A simple man of sterling character,"
summarises the way in which he was spoken of by the Bishop of Edinburgh at a notable memorial service held last Monday at the Cathedral Church of St. Mary. I had the opportunity of attending and heard the Bishop say that the noble Lord would have found the idea of eulogistic speeches repugnant to him, but I am sure that your Lordships will join me in this brief expression of appreciation of Lord Elphinstone's distinguished services and of our sorrow over the loss that we and his relatives are feeling so acutely at this time, especially the gracious Lady who has been his life's companion for forty-five years. To her and her family especially do we express our respectful sympathy as we mourn with them the passing of a well-loved Scotsman and a great Christian gentleman.
May I now turn to the Amendment that stands in my name on the Order Paper and give some indication of the reasons which moved me to ask that a new clause be added to the Bill? The purpose of this new clause is simple: it is to confer upon the teaching profession an elementary right which is available to employees in almost every other service—namely, the right of voluntary negotiation for the settlement of salaries and conditions of work, with arbitration if agreement cannot be reached. The principle of voluntary negotiation is conceded by all political Parties and its application throughout industry is recognised and accepted by employers and employees alike. Likewise the practice of referring disputes to arbitration is enshrined in the Industrial Disputes Order of 1951.
The nature of the arrangements by which teachers' salaries in Scotland are arrived at is such as to deny them the right of voluntary negotiation. First, the amount of Government grant available for Scottish education depends, through the Goschen formula, on the total educational grant for England and Wales, and in practice it is broadly true that the part of that grant expended on teachers' salaries in Scotland is similarly related to the part so expended in England and
1264
Wales. It follows that the so-called negotiating body—that is, the National Joint Council—dealing with the salaries of teachers in Scotland, does not negotiate freely, inasmuch as negotiations must be conducted in the knowledge that the total sum available for distribution has been predetermined. In this connection, it is worthy of note that when the National Joint Council went to arbitration in December, 1953, the independent arbiter made his award contingent upon the immediately previous English award being confirmed.
Secondly, apart altogether from the limitation of the Goschen formula, the system by which salaries of teachers in Scotland are arrived at cannot be described as voluntary negotiation in the ordinarily understood sense of that term. What is the system? It is to be found in subsection (2) of Section 79 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, of which I have a copy here if any noble Lord wishes to see it. In effect, the arrangements are as follows. The Secretary of State prescribes salary scales by regulation, but before embodying these scales in regulations he must have regard to the recommendations of the Council referred to in the section. The Council approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of the section to deal with the salaries of teachers in Scotland is the National Joint Council, which is composed of representatives of education authorities and the Educational Institute of Scotland, with assessors appointed by the Secretary of State. Other teachers' organisations in Scotland, such as the Secondary School Teachers' Association and the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association, are not represented on the National Joint Council.
Now, although the function of the National Joint Council is to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, the section makes it perfectly clear that these recommendations have no binding force on him; he must "have regard" to them, but he need not adopt them. The constitution of the National Joint Council provides machinery for arbitration in cases where both sides do not reach agreement, and it appears that the findings of an arbiter appointed under its constitution by the Lord President of the Court of Session become the findings of the Council. But, once again, the Secretary of State need not adopt the findings; he need only "have regard" to them.
There is a further objection which is strongly felt by many members of the teaching profession in Scotland. The deliberations of the National Joint Council are held in private and their recommendations are not published before the Secretary of State makes his regulations; in fact, my information is that they are never published at all, as such, by the National Joint Council. In other words, as I understand it, the teachers whose salaries are being negotiated (if such a word is permissible in this context) do not know what is being put forward in their name. This atmosphere of secrecy has given rise to much dissatisfaction.
The scarcity of teachers, and, in particular, male teachers, in Scotland has now reached alarming proportions. The following is a quotation from The Scotsman of Thursday, December 1, illustrating this point. The heading is, "Headmaster appeals for extra staff. Pupils left teacherless," and it says:
"Appealing for the services of another teacher at Dunbarney Junior Secondary School, Bridge of Earn, the headmaster, Mr. R. W. Seath, told members of the Dunbarney Sub-Committee yesterday that when he left to attend the meeting in Perth he had to leave thirty pupils to their own resources for two periods. He added that to-day he would have to take classes of 49, 53, 45 and 30 successively in the forenoon, and that in the afternoon there would be 'the usual complete muddle.' Requests for more staff to cope with extra pupils have never been satisfactorily answered, he alleged, and while the Director of Education said that classes could be held in the village hall to reduce overcrowding, the whole thing was pointless when there was no teacher to go with the pupils. The committee agreed to support Mr. Seath in a further request for an additional teacher."
At the present time the recruitment figure for male teachers is probably the lowest ever recorded. One of the reasons for this is that salaries for male teachers are not adequate to attract men with the necessary qualifications. In other words, the rate paid is not a suitable rate for the job, and under the existing machinery in terms of which salaries are in fact imposed by the Secretary of State, there is no means by which the rate for the job can be ascertained. Schoolmasters as a class are an intelligent and responsible body of men and they cannot be expected to be content with a facade of negotiating machinery which cannot stand comparison for a single mom ant with the arrangements which are freely conceded as a
1266
right to all the other major services in the country. So long as the existing system is kept in being, so long will the sense of frustration in the teaching profession continue, and the recruitment figures reflect the fact that teaching is no longer a profession which is an attraction to educated men. It is a truism to say that over the last ten or fifteen years the status of schoolmasters has steadily fallen.
The proposed new clause is intended to introduce into salary negotiations a principle which more than any other might restore the teaching profession to its traditional place amongst the other professions in the country. Therefore I plead for the acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of the principles aimed at in this new clause, which I believe would secure a proper evaluation of teachers' service and, as a consequence, cause The profession to become attractive to many students who presently take up other spheres of work: elsewhere with more attractive conditions of service. Scottish education has had a great reputation. We must strive to make sure that this reputation is not lost. Whatever the fate of this Amendment, I hope that all Scots interested in education will unite to save the teaching profession from further decline. That last word is one that, intentionally on my part, places considerable responsibility upon the organised teachers to lead in the effort to save Scottish education. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mothers.)
LORD TEVIOT: I feel I must say a word or two on the subject of the new clause submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. For ten years I was Chairman of the National Joint Council. I am familiar with the set-up and the work of that body, and the noble Lord has told us accurately what it has to do and what is expected of it. The scales of salaries which are now being worked are called the "Teviot scales," and they were instituted about eleven years ago. I resigned from the chairmanship of that body about two years ago. I feel that the time has come when the whole situation with regard to the powers of the National Joint Council and the change in the general life of the people of this country should be reviewed. I feel sure that the substance of the noble Lord's

1267
new clause would meet with the approval of the teachers with whom I was familiar.
In the ten years when I was the Chairman of the National Joint Council we used sometimes to get at loggerheads. I sat with great pomp and circumstance with twenty-four representatives, twelve of the Teachers' Institute on the right-hand side of the table in front of me, and twelve of the educational authorities on the left-hand side, together with assessors, secretaries and so on it was a very formidable assembly. At times during those ten years I used to wonder whether we should get through with agreement, but somehow or other we always managed it. Sometimes I would suggest that the two sides should part for a time, one going into one room and the other into another, to talk it over, so that when they came back we might reach agreement, and we always did. The spirit within the National Joint Council was excellent there was never any bad feeling. The whole idea from both sides of the table was to see how we could benefit the situation of education, which the noble Lord so well described in the latter part of his speech.
Therefore, while feeling that his new clause is a little complicated, I believe it would help to overcome some of the difficulties that have arisen in the last few years, and that a great response would come as a result of some such new clause as the noble Lord has suggested, not merely from one side but from both sides of the table that I used to preside over. I hope that my noble friend who is to reply will have great sympathy with the expression of the noble Lord who has moved it, and also with the information I have been able to give him derived from the experience I had over quite a long period. I hope that something of that nature will come from the clause suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD SALTOUN: In view of Sir Winston Churchill's call for the increase and improvement of our technological education, I feel that the time is ripe for some consideration of teachers' salaries. It is going to be difficult for poor local education authorities to afford the whole sum. I should like, as a Scottish Peer elected under the guidance of the late Lord Elphinstone, to associate myself with every word uttered about him by
1268
the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. I am particularly glad that it came so graciously from the other side of the House.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, but having heard the very clear exposition of it by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, I should like to make one point. We who live in the country deplore more than anything the continual closing up of the small schools, particularly junior secondary schools. It has a detrimental effect on all rural life. The closing of these schools is, of course, due to the shortage of teachers. There are not enough teachers, either male or female, to go round, simply because the teaching profession is not made attractive enough for them, due to the inadequate salaries. There is no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has explained, that a large section of the teaching profession are underpaid in comparison with other comparable professions. If it is the noble Lord's intention to try to ameliorate the conditions of these people and so bring them back and open up some of the schools in the countryside which have been closed to such an alarming extent in the past, then I think there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment, and I will support it.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I appreciate the very sincere motives which induced the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, to bring forward this new clause, but I have to tell your Lordships, with regret, that I cannot possibly accept it, because what the clause proposes is a most drastic alteration in the manner in which teachers' salaries are now negotiated and settled. No alterations in the present methods are being suggested by the Educational Institute of Scotland, which represents no fewer than 18,000 out of the 23,000 women teachers and 9,000 out of the 11,800 men teachers in Scotland, nor has any alteration been suggested by the education authorities. In a recent debate in another place suggestions on the same topic were put forward, which my honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland undertook to examine. Might I say to the noble Lord that if he saw fit to withdraw this Amendment I would give him an assurance that his proposal would be examined, along with the proposal made in another place?
LORD MATHERS: I realise that the noble Lord, the Minister of State, has not had the opportunity of studying all that is involved in the new clause that I put forward. I agree that it would effect a drastic change in the present position. It was deliberately intended to be a drastic change, because I consider a drastic change is necessary. But, in the light of the statement he has made that this will be considered, along with the other proposition made in another place where our Whitley Council was mentioned, I do not feel that I should be acting properly if I did other than agree to accept the undertaking given by the noble Lord; and I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The purpose of this Amendment is to correct an error in Section 125 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, and to substitute the word "sub-committee" for "committee." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, at end insert—
("In head (ii) of paragraph (a) of section one hundred and twenty-five for the word 'committee' there shall be substituted the word 'sub-committee')—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be in Committee on recommitment of the Bill read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Your Lordships will remember that this Bill, which
1270
is a Bill to consolidate with Amendments the law relating to police administration in Scotland, was, on Second Reading, referred to a Joint Committee. The Joint Committee have made a number of drafting Amendments, and with your Lordships' permission I propose to move them into the Bill en bloc. I accordingly beg to move that the Amendments made by the Joint Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments made by the Joint Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Regulations as to government and administration of police forces]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I desire to make a small addition to the Amendment to Clause 11 as printed on the Paper in my name. At the end of the Amendment the words, "as to" should read. "as to the." I rise to move the Amendment to Clause 11 as I have just amended it. This Amendment and that to the following clause are complementary. As the Bill stands at present, under Clause 11 (2) (f) regulations may be made
"regulating the scales of pay and allowances,"
and under Clause 12 (1) the police authority have to pay to members of their force pay and allowances in accordance with such scales. The existing police regulations, however, cover, in addition to scales of pay, matters such as entitlement to pay and special provisions for service in Her Majesty's Forces; and they do not include the actual scales of all allowances. If I may give your Lordships an example, the rent allowances vary according to the area in which the police officer lives, and the regulations provide merely that the scales of rent allowances must be approved by the Secretary of State. This Amendment and the next are designed to widen the provisions of the Bill in order to enable regulations as to pay and allowances to be made in the same terms as at present. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("regulating the scales of") and insert ("as to the").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Pay, allowances, expenses and rewards]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 2, leave out from ("with") to ("and") in line 3 and insert ("regulations made under section eleven of this Act").—(Lord Strathclyde.?)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 38 agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved, after Clause 38 to insert the following new clause:
Financial provisions
"39.—(1) There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) any increase attributable to the passing of this Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment providing for the payment of Exchequer grants towards the expenses of police authorities and joint police committees in Scotland; and

(b) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this Act.

(2) Any sums which by virtue of any provision of this Act are received by the Secretary of State from police authorities or joint police committees, or deducted by him from moneys otherwise payable by him to any such authority or committee, shall be paid into the Exchequer."
The noble Lord said During the passage of the Bill, it has been found that this new clause covering the financial provisions of the Bill will be necessary. I thought it right that your Lordships should have the Bill before you in proper form. This clause, together with other provisions affecting Commons privilege on finance, will of course be taken out of the Bill before it goes to another place by the privilege Amendments which I shall move formally on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
4.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The object of this Bill is to perpetuate for one further year certain Acts, or parts of Acts, which are due to expire on December 31 this year, and some others which end on March 31 next year. Details of these are in the Schedule. We usually pass this Bill in December, though last year it was in November. The only difference between this Bill and the Act of last year is that we have been able to drop the subsection on the Civil Contingency Fund Act which was included last year, and is now covered by permanent legislation. If any of your Lordships would like to raise in Committee any points on any one of the individual Acts mentioned in the Schedule, it would be helpful if he would give notice of the fact so that the appropriate one of my colleagues can be present to answer his questions in detail. Of course, I will try to answer, broadly, any questions that may be raised on the general principle of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am giving the noble Lord the comfort of spending a peaceful Christmas by assuring him that, so far as I know, it is not the intention of anybody on this side to move any Amendments to this Bill. In another place a series of Amendments were moved to delete certain provisions in the Schedule, prefaced in every case by the explanation that it was not really intended that the provisions should be deleted, but that the Amendments were merely a pretext for raising a debate. We do not peed that pretext. There are two things I should like to say about this Bill. They have been said on a number of occasions before, but I think they ought to be said again. So far as I remember, the last time was some years ago.
The first point is that it is difficult to follow the Schedule. There are some eight, nine or ten references to Acts of Parliament, or to parts thereof, and if one wants to form a judgment as to

1273
whether any of these should be carried on for another year one ought to know what they are. I would defy any Member of this House, with the possible exception of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord who introduced the Bill, to say, for instance, what is contained in Sections 1 and 2 of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934. And yet we are continuing these sections for another year. I feel that a White Paper might be of interest and value to noble Lords who want to play an intelligent part in these proceedings. It looks as if, having done it once, such a Paper could re-circulate every year. The same document would apply because, with rare exceptions, this legislation is continued from year to year. I hope the noble Lord will bear that suggestion in mind, to see whether anything of that kind can be done.
The other point is this. Is it really necessary to carry on some of this legislation in this way from year to year? Some of it is becoming somewhat ancient, almost venerable. There is the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act of 1919, Section 1. This has been re-enacted every year since 1919—that is, for thirty-six years. By now I should have thought that we might make up our minds whether or not we wanted this as a permanent part of our legislation. The same applies to the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1934. That is not quite so venerable but it conies of age this year. It is now twenty-one years old. Do we really want this as a permanent part of our legislation? There are some youngsters as well, enactments only five years old. Perhaps it is too early to say whether a temporary provision which has been going on for only five years needs to be enacted permanently, but I should have thought that by now we could make up our minds about these "old stagers." I would remind the House of the emergency legislation that we passed about a week ago. We were told that the Government are seriously engaged in reducing the amount of temporary legislation, either transferring it into permanent legislation or getting rid of it altogether. But here we seem to go on, year after year, passing this temporary legislation. I feel that
1274
the time has arrived when it might be seriously looked at, to see whether we cannot shorten this Schedule, or even get rid of it altogether. Subject to that comment, I do not propose to move, on another occasion, the deletion of any of these provisions. I will give the noble Lord one year's respite, but I hope that after the next year we shall be able to get a satisfactory answer to this point.
5.2 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for receiving the Bill in the spirit in which he has done. I have previously heard the point about some explanation being desirable, and I had my mind on a memorandum—the noble Lord mentioned a White Paper. I had turned this subject over in my mind from a drafting and illustrative point of view, and I do not know whether it would be in order to produce a memorandum relating to a section of an Act which itself had a full memorandum printed when it was originally enacted. That is a technical point, but I will certainly look into it.
LORD SILKIN: All we want is a short reminder of what these Acts are all about; we do not want a legal explanation.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as regards the length of time for which this temporary legislation has been running, of course in every case we hope that it will not be necessary to enact it permanently; that is why it is still included in this Bill. In fact, one of these Acts, the Road Traffic Act, will be covered, we hope, by a Bill now passing through another place. I will certainly call the attention of the responsible Ministers to what the noble Lord has said, but at the moment I believe that the Acts, or parts of Acts, referred to are necessary, although not permanently necessary.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF EXPORTS
5.4 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the introduction of measures by which manufacturers who already have a ready home market for their products can be stimulated to try to sell them abroad. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the hour is getting late and it has been a busy week, so I assure your Lordships that my remarks on this important subject will be brief. I think it is true to say that most people in this country have absorbed the elementary economic truth that exports have to pay for our imports; yet at the present moment all the indications are that, although production—and by "production" I mean the total production of the country—is increasing, very little of that increase is going into exports. I should like to quote from the Bulletin for Industry issued by the Information Division of the Treasury last November. It was there stated:
"Output of metal consumer goods and passenger cars has been rising sharply. Exports generally in this group have changed very little, and exports in some items have fallen. The home market has thus taken the major share of the increased output—indeed, has in some instances taken more supplies while export markets have taken less."
In November of this year there was a debate on this subject in another place, and the Minister of State at the Board of Trade said that our share of world trade had declined since 1951 and that our major competitors overseas had taken greater advantage than we had of recent favourable world conditions.
I will not weary your Lordships with more illustrations of the point that I am trying to make, but it is a disturbing situation. That is why I have asked Her Majesty's Government whether they have any positive plans for encouraging exporters. It is obvious that patriotism is not widespread enough. I could give instances of firms who, because they can sell the whole of their output in the home market, do little to try to undertake export business. Recently, on one of my train visits north, I got into conversation with a man who told me that he was a manufacturer of high-class toffee. He said that he employed 120 people and that if he could get more labour he could sell twice what he was producing at that time. I said to him, "Do you do any
1276
export business?" He said, "Oh no, why should I bother about exports, with all the trouble of arranging shipping, credits and agents, when I can sell at home everything that I can make?" I asked him, if he wanted to do any exporting, whether there were any countries which would be likely to buy his goods. He said, "Oh yes, the U.S.A., for instance; they are very fond of high-class English sweets." I do not know the name of this gentleman and, fortunately, he does not know my name.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: He does now!
LORD JESSEL: My guess is that he is not a newspaper reader, and certainly not a reader of the Reports of the debates in your Lordships' House; so I feel comparatively safe.
As I see it, the problem is: how can we push people of this sort into exports? Are we going to use the stick, or are we going to dangle the carrot? I suppose the Socialist answer would be some form of rationing of materials and licensing; "the gentleman in Whitehall" would decide who was to have steel for fabricating, who was to have butter and sugar for making toffee. But that is not supposed to be the Conservative answer, although at the moment bank managers appear to be deciding who shall have the money. I wonder whether the bank manager is really the best person to do this. I hope that the credit "squeeze" is being applied with discrimination. More than ever to-day, firms who are engaged mainly in the export business should have increased facilities and not have their overdraft reduced. If we do not believe in the policy of "the stick," what are we going to use as the "carrot"? Can Her Majesty's Government give some positive inducement to exporters?
It has been suggested that some tax relief given on profits derived from exports might meet the case. In a debate in the other place, to which I have previously referred in my speech, the Minister of State at the Board of Trade said that he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take note of the situation. I am sure the answer will be that this cannot be done. Any remission of taxation on profits derived from export sales would, in effect, be a subsidy, and for the last two or three years Her Majesty's Government have been urging foreign

1277
Governments to drop export subsidies. I understand that by the end of the year nearly all the O.E.E.C. countries will have done so, and it would therefore be almost dishonest if we were suddenly to embark on a policy of export subsidies. I am sure the official answer will be that the recent actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are aimed at reducing home consumption and thereby freeing further resources for products which can be exported. I hope this is true but I have my doubts; and even if the policy were successful the process would be very slow, and the problem is urgent.
When I asked a friend of mine, a prominent industrialist, for his solution he said: "Give managing directors 100 tax free for every £10.000 worth of export business they do and you will get remarkable results." I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take that suggestion very seriously. I have not worked out details of such a scheme, and I must make it clear that I am not myself a managing director. There is certainly one positive helpful action which Her Majesty's Government can give: the Export Credits Guarantee Department should be told to be more venturesome in helping British exporters to offer long terms of credit. Further, the Department at present take too long to make up their mind. It is not the fault of the Department, for they are only obeying rules laid down for them; but I have heard of cases where, while the exporter has been awaiting an answer, and while investigations by the Department have been continuing, a foreign competitor has jumped in and taken the order from the customer, whose patience has become exhausted.
Another positive action which both sides in industry can take is the avoidance of strikes. Do your Lordships realise that during this year we have had more stoppages in industry than in any year since the war, and more than twice the total for the years 1950 and 1951 put together? These stoppages often lead to cancellation of expert orders and to loss of confidence in the ability of British manufacturers to deliver on time. Another factor which deters manufacturers from seeking export orders is the shadow of impending wage claims. A manufacturer cannot quote a firm price, especially when dealing in capital goods, when he does not know what his cost of production
1278
will be six months ahead. There is now keen competition in the export market, and the old clause about "prices ruling at the date of delivery" simply will not do now. I am neither an economist nor a financier, and it would be an impertinence for me to pretend to know the solution of the problems which I have raised. But I see very clearly that if the bulk of the efforts of the people in this country are devoted to making goods merely for each other, that is a sham economy which cannot continue for long. That is why I have ventured this afternoon to take up the time of your Lordships' House by asking the Question which appears on the Order Paper in my name.
5.17 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, said it is late and he apologised for troubling your Lordships with this matter. But he has raised a matter of fundamental and prime importance: he has put his finger on the one thing that really matters—how to increase the export of goods from this country in order to meet our balance of payments position. May I say at once that I speak for myself alone? I do not even pretend to speak as a politician. My only excuse for speaking is that I have lived all my life in industry, and what experience I have gained. What lessons I have learned, have been gained and learned the hard way. It is from practical experience that I venture to address your Lordships now.
I pose this question to get to the heart of the problem. Why do not British manufacturers export? I believe that there are three answers. First, the risks are too great: secondly the costs are high; and, thirdly, the return is poor. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is to reply will perhaps know that it was reported the other day that the chairman of the British section of the International Chamber of Trade, a Mr. Steele, who is a Director of I.C.I., publicly said that if he was a small manufacturer, producing a good article, the last thing that he would ever attempt to do would be to export it. Why? Doubtless for one or all of the reasons I have mentioned. In my life Ii have found that the only way to get in creased effort is, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, to increase the incentive. It is no good this Government or any other

1279
thinking they can cure this problem with their present negative approach to it; for that will not work. Industry cannot be expected to drive forward when it is on its heels; and industry as a whole is knocked back on its heels periodically. In 1947 we were told that we were in a tough spot. "Tighten your belts and work harder" was the slogan. Later it was said that we had turned the corner. Then we were told to "Invest in success," and now again it is "Tighten your belts and work harder."
The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, who has had even greater business experience than I, is sitting opposite. Suppose that he and I at any time in our business career had gone to our employees and said, "Look here, you fellows, I want an extra effort in sales. I want a record month. We have to sell more"; or, if we were manufacturers, "We have got to make more, and I am going to reduce your wages so that you have to work harder and produce more to get the same money as you got before." What would have been the result? Yet that is precisely what the Government are saying to-day.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I hope the noble Lord will elaborate his point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, I will. There is the increased profits tax. Profits are the wages of industry. So the producer has to work harder to get the same amount. Then there is the increased purchase tax. That means that the housewife must have more money to buy the same amount of goods. It is the same as saying to employees: "The way I am going to give you an incentive to work harder is to reduce the remuneration you will get from working." That does not add up to common sense. It seems to me that the only thing any Government can think of when we are in a tough spot is to increase taxation. Any one of us who has had one hour's experience of business knows well that to be successful in business it is necessary to do precisely the opposite. If you want results you have to increase incentive. As the noble Lord has quite rightly said, you have to increase the carrot that you dangle in front of the nose of the donkey and throw away the stick with which you beat the poor, wretched
1280
beast continuously. So what are the Government going to do in answer to the three pertinent questions I put? My answer to that question, "Why does a manufacturer not export?" is: Because the risks are great; costs are high, and profit is low. I am going to make some suggestion as to what I would do. I would say to the producers of this country, "I will give you income and profits tax remission on all profits you make in the export market." I sense what the noble Lord is going to say in reply. First of all, no doubt, he will say, "That is a blunt instrument. Who is the exporter? Is it the man who mines coal or smelts ore? The incidence of such remission would be indiscriminate." The same is true of the use of the bank rate. As the noble Lord has rightly said, the bank rate falls on the godly and on the ungodly indiscriminately. The other thing I expect that the noble Lord will say—and Lord Jessel has said the same thing—is: "This is subsidising exports; we cannot do that." I want the noble, Lord to tell your Lordships, if he will, what is an export subsidy? What is it? My simple mind boggles. I cannot discriminate between an incentive in the form of a tax remission to increase exports and the imposition of another tax on the same article to prevent it from being sold in the home market so that it will be available for the export market. To me that is an export subsidy, though it may be a roundabout one.
I will give your Lordships another case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer justified reducing the tax on silver candlesticks to broaden sales in the home market so that some exports of silver candlesticks would take place. We know very well that what really will happen in that direction is that the manufacturer will increase his home market, end make more profit, so that he has additional profit to subsidise his export price. Is that an export subsidy? Do not let us split hairs on this matter. Any inducement held out by means of steps affecting the home market to stimulate exports is an export subsidy; and, similarly, our chief competitors in every market are in some way or other subsidising their export trade. Openly, they are trying to give this up, but as they give it up openly it is going on through the back door. The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, will remember that we had a debate in this House on

1281
shipping. In that debate I asked the question—I think I put it to Lord Mancroft quite bluntly—whether he considered that the "fifty-fifty" clause in relation to American foreign-going merchant shipping was an export subsidy. The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, who was sitting on the Front Bench opposite said: "Yes." Of course it is. So I do not think we can be quite so gentle about this export subsidy.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, may say that if we do this kind of thing we shall get retaliation. I hesitate to bring this up, but did Australia wait to retaliate? When the embargo put on British goods is causing our exporters such terrific strain, we just cannot sit still in this country. Exports are vital to us. It is a case of "Export or die." We cannot dress ourselves up in kindergarten outfits like little girls going to a Sunday school treat, then go into this "all-in" wrestling match and think that we are not going to get our frocks soiled, Export trade is a matter of life or death to this country. This or any other Government can go on trying by the negative principle, the negative approach. That means always restriction, always increased taxation, till one might as well say, "Throw the wretched people in the gutter; the only way for them to increase their standard of living is for them to fight their way out again."
In doing this the Government are really denying one of the fundamental principles of human nature. It is the hope of reward that sweetens labour, and man is a spending animal. Do the Government think that putting increased purchase tax on motor cars will result in the export of one more motor car? Of course it will not. But this is the folly of the thing—someone at the Treasury needs to be told "the facts of life." One hundred par cent. of the commercial vehicles sold in this country are sold on the home market in a manner quite legitimate, whereby tax relief is obtained up to over 50 per cent. of their value. Eighty per cent. of the motor cars are sold in the same way. So the Treasury hand back to the purchasers, through the profit and loss account, over 50 per cent. of the tax they get. What the present Government's policy will do is this: it will throw this country back into that silly restrictive position, that restrictive mentality, that was the curse
1282
and downfall of our overseas trade between the two wars. It will not increase exports. Manufacturers will produce less. They will go back to that old silly idea which they tried before of making a lot out of a little instead of a little out of a lot. We have to get out of this trouble. The only hope that we have of curing it is to increase our exports by every means and every incentive that we can.
I would beg the Government to think seriously about this matter. I am not troubled about the home market. I do not mind how much money is spent on the home market. As the noble Lord has said, prodictivity has gone up in this country marvellously. I think the noble Lord can tell me that it is about 20 per cent. over that of 1947. Look at the position of the worker. He has been told that if he would increase output, the rewards were there. The worker, the management and the machine increase output by 20 per cent. and then, when the extra money is in the worker's pocket, somebody comes along and says, "Yes, but you aren't going to spend it. We are going to put up the taxes." We are getting to the stage, if we have not already reached it, when a man will say, "All right, if can't spend my money, I won't work and earn it." And nobody has yet found out what to do with tree man who says, "I won't." Man is a spending animal and we cannot dangle before him the prospect of increased wages through harder work and then say that he is not to be allowed to spend the money and that it will be taxed. Again, that is a negative approach.
That is one side of the problem. Let me briefly touch on another; that is, the disincentive policy of the economists and theoretical financiers—and the theoretical financiers and economists ate our bugbear in this country to-day. Those of us who have risen from the workshop floor know very well that incentives, rewards for effort and industry, are the only way we shall get results. Whet disturbs me that a number of our British manufacturers do not study the export market enough. Before the war we nearly ruined ourselves by adopting the policy that the world had to have what it suited us to make. We were successful in our export trade while there was a sellers' market, but now that the buyers' market is coming along foreign buyers will not buy what it suits us to

1283
make: they are buying only what it suits them to buy.
Let me give an illustration of what I mean. I have been making some inquiries into this matter, and I find that the great motor car industry, which has done a marvellous job for this country, is in this position: that a German car, the Volkswagen, has sold more units in America in 1955 than the most successful British motor car has sold in America since the end of the war. Why? Because it suits the American public. The Americans want more powerful motor cars. We do not meet this need because there is no incentive to go out and sell, because the risks are so great. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, who is President of the National Union of Manufacturers, can tell a sorry story of some of the exports which have failed in this respect.
I do not believe that we shall price ourselves out of the market by higher wages, any more than low wages priced us into the export market. We must have productivity as well; and productivity means managerial incentive as well as worker incentive. It means risk; it means risking capital. We want people who will take risks to export, who will go into new markets and exploit them. That is why I support the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. Speaking from my own experience, I know of no other way than the way of incentives. If I could find any other way, I should commend it, but my own experience has told me that that is the only way, and I beg the noble Lord to take this fact to Her Majesty's Government. We have to increase the size of the carrots in front of the donkey's nose and throw away the stick that is beating the poor beast on that part of his anatomy where sticks usually fall.
5.35 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I was particularly interested when I saw the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, on the Order Paper. The terms of his Question touch upon one of the most difficult and important aspects of our economic life. We do not need in this House to go over the familiar ground of why we need to export, for, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said in the course of a fine, fighting, Tory speech, we must export or die.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I was at great pains to say that I was speaking for myself alone, and not as a politician but as an industrialist. It was not a Tory speech; it was the speech of a common-sense industrialist.
LORD MANCROFT: The two go together, surely. It was a fine speech anyhow, and so was that of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. But whether the noble Lords have really given us a solution to this difficult problem remains to be seen. We readily agree that we have to export or die. We are also becoming pretty certain amongst ourselves that we are not exporting anything like enough, but, to do justice, I think we must say straight away that there are a large number of British firms which are making substantial and determined efforts to increase their export trade. During the first nine months of this year our exports were 6 per cent. higher than during the first six months of last year, and in October of this year our exports by value reached the highest monthly figure ever recorded—that was the sum of £268 million. Having regard to the increasing severity of international competition, I think we can all agree that this achievement reflects credit on everybody concerned in trade and industry, but, having regard to the increased level of our imports, the increased share of world trade earned by our competitors and the need to build up an adequate surplus in our overseas accounts, it is not satisfactory. Broadly, the position is, not that we are doing badly but rather that we are not doing well enough.
Let me make the Government's policy perfectly clear to your Lordships. Our policy is to bring about a substantial increase in United Kingdom exports by creating the conditions in which manufacturers and traders will be encouraged to seek greater business abroad. There, I am certain, I shall have the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The Government are aware that over recent months the excessive pressure of demand at home has been drawing resources away from the export trade and reducing the willingness of individual firms to make the determined efforts required—and they are determined efforts that have to be made—to secure additional export orders, especially in the newer and more difficult markets.

1285
The primary object of the successive measures taken by the Government during the course of this year, up to and including the Autumn Budget and the measures connected with it, has been to restrain the pressure of domestic demand and thus both to encourage and to facilitate greater efforts in the export markets. Let me briefly remind your Lordships of what these measures have been: the raising of the bank rate to 4½ per cent. in February of this year; restrictions on hire purchase in February, which were increased in July; the Chancellor of the Exchequer's request to the banks in July to achieve a substantial reduction in advances; measures to contain Government and local authority expenditure and to restrain the capital expenditure of nationalised industries; and finally, the Autumn Budget in October, with its increases in purchase tax and profits tax.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Every one negative.
LORD MANCROFT: Every one designed, however, to create the situation in which the exporter has greater incentive to get on with exports and to reduce his efforts in the home market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, and repeated more than once, that the Government remain firm in their resolve to curb home spending so as to make room for more exports.
I come to the first suggestion that has been made—and frequently made—this vexed question of export subsidies. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is not in his place to-day. I believe he would have given us his views on this subject once again. As I have frequently told your Lordships, the Government are opposed to the use of export subsidies or similar export incentives directed to stimulating exports artificially. It would be against our interests to stimulate a race between countries in the use of these devices. Not only would it be extremely costly, but in the end I should think that everybody stands to lose from this sort of "beggar-my-neighbour" contest. The Government's policy as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is aware, is to try by direct negotiation and through international co-operation to get other countries to drop schemes of this kind, rather than introduce them ourselves.
We have had some success in this task. In answer to a question in your Lordships'
1286
House on October 25, I referred to the obligations which limit and look to tie eventual abolition of artificial incentives and subsidies, accepted by the members of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, to which the noble Lord referred, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The German Government have agreed--and my noble friend Lord Jessel referred to this—after discussion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, to allow their scheme for a special remission of profits tax to exporters to lapse at the end of this year. I know that we have not had complete success with every country; there are one or two running sores which we have discussed in this House on many occasions. But we are persevering. I think we are on the right lines and I am sure this is the right way to tackle the problem.
My noble friend, Lord Jessel, suggested, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, also toyed with the idea, that we should stimulate exports by lower rate of tax on earnings from export trade. I know it is a difficult thing to decide what actually is an export subsidy. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me whether I had a definition of an export subsidy. I am afraid I have not. I will try to find out if the experts have one. But it struck me, while listening to the noble Lord, that an export subsidy is anything that your rivals may regard as an export subsidy. That is where your trouble will be. I find it hard to see what form any such tax differentiation could take which would not be open to just those objections which we have brought against rather similar arrangements adopted by some other countries and which in our view amounted to giving artificial aid to exporters. I think that is a more important objection than the difficulty in administering it. That difficulty exists, of course, but I believe the one I have just mentioned is more important.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would not the noble Lord say that taxing the home market to prevent purchase is an artificial subsidy to exports?
LORD MANCROFT: Admittedly, the dividing line may be file. That, I should have thought, was quite permissible, but the form that has already been suggested would clearly give rise to objection.

1287
Then we turn to the question of physical controls. This Government, in particular, is opposed to the use of physical controls to stimulate exports. I believe that exporters have gained a real advantage from this Government's policies of trying to free the economy. We have tried, so far as possible, to give exporters freedom to buy their raw materials wherever they have found it commercially most suitable to do so. Again, I do not think we must create artificial shortages—that is not a way in which you could possibly encourage the exporter. I do not think we can contemplate the detailed intervention in the affairs of industry which controls of that sort would involve. The frustration that would arise is hardly calculated to bring about the atmosphere to which I have been referring, that in which we hope enterprise will be stimulated. As both noble Lords have said, it is enterprise that we want above all.
The Government try to assist exporters in every possible practical way. They provide through the Board of Trade and overseas officers a range of services designed to assist the exporter with information and advice about the prospects and problems of selling his goods in overseas markets. In order to realise the extent of that information and the amount of facts that are provided, your Lordships might be interested to know that in the course of one year alone the Board of Trade answered 12,000 inquiries as to the commercial standing of firms abroad. That is the sort of information and service which the Board of Trade are happy to provide. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is only too happy to draw the attention of exporters, and potential exporters, to opportunities of increasing their trade, and to encourage them to discuss their export difficulties with the Board of Trade and their regional officers; and they very readily do. They make a great deal of use of the services which the Board of Trade make available.
Another illustration of the practical help provided for exporters is the comprehensive system of credit insurance facilities offered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. My noble friend Lord Jessel talked about delays, and he
1288
asked whether the Department could not be more venturesome. If he has any particular case in mind, I will certainly look into it. I will also look into the general question of delays to see what can be done—if his accusations are justified. Many exporters use these facilities with advantage and come willingly to discuss their problems with us. I believe that more use could be made of the facilities of the Board of Trade.
I want to end on this note. These services by which help is given to exporters are no substitute for salesmanship; they are merely aids to salesmanship. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, talked about the practical side of it. I have not, I am afraid, a practical interest in business, though I share the noble Lord's dislike of the bugbear of theoretical economists that he talked about. I hope that when the election to the leadership of his Party takes place shortly he will not find himself in serious trouble.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I shall be saved that embarrassment We are not allowed to vote.
LORD MANCROFT: Of course; I had forgotten that. Although I have not had any practical experience of business, as some noble Lords have, I have a knowledge of salesmanship, because for some years I had the honour to be the chairman of the Incorporated Sales Managers' Association, and I am very conscious of the great importance of determined salesmanship in the export trade. I do not want to make sweeping generalisations that I cannot support with facts or figures, but it struck me that there were still far too many business managers who had the idea firmly in their heads that their goods would sell themselves or that the quality of British workmanship would sell their goods without any attempt at salesmanship. Quite often one found firms that ought to know better, whose directors had never been abroad; who were relying for their salesmanship on some agent they had never spoken to; who had never visited their own markets and seen the peculiarities of their own markets; who never realised, for instance, how the western markets of Canada and America place a great deal more importance on the packaging of goods than we do; who did not realise the importance of sticking to the time of a contract; and generally,

1289
unlike the Volkswagen concern mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, were never aware of the needs of their markets because they had never seen them. In fact, their salesmanship was slipshod to a fault. That is not the universal rule, of course, but my experience shows me that there are too many firms who are content with sloppy salesmanship. I believe it is that which will provide the answer to the problem which we are discussing this afternoon. It is not the only answer, and the Government will certainly provide every possible assistance they can.
I am only too happy to have listened to the suggestions put forward. I am sorry to have been rather dampening in the effect of what I have had to say about some of them. For the reasons I have given, we must still rely on salesmanship and the efforts of the Government to provide that atmosphere where salesmanship will flourish and the export trade will continue to expand, as both noble Lords have suggested it must, to save us from the difficulties which we shall certainly meet if we cannot go on balancing our payments and increasing our exports every year, as we are not yet managing to do sufficiently.

EUROPE AND AFRICAN ADVANCEMENT
5.50 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the fact that a number of European countries are responsible for the administration of ter7itories in Africa and others have close links with Africa, both cultural and economic, and in view of the desirability of uniting Europe in a common purpose and a common task, Her Majesty's Government will take the lead in the Council of Europe by inviting an overall European approach to the problem of African advancement. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the opportunity of saying a few words on the Question which stands in my name, and for the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in the consideration which I am sure he has given to it. Since I put the Question down there has been a discussion in the Council of Europe on the development of African territories, and this discussion is to be resumed at the next session. It is there-
1290
fore an appropriate time for the matter to be mentioned in your Lordships' House.
Before I refer to the discussion which took place at Strasbourg I think I should indicate what I have in my mind as the aim to be achieved. We on these Benches, and I think many noble Lords in otter parts of the House, would like to see a world in which there were no tolls levied upon goods passing from one country to another, and no restriction upon the movement of peoples in our world. If I am accused of dreaming, I would recall that some of us still remember the days prior to 1914, when men and women could move freely about, at any rate in a large part of the world, without a passport and carrying gold coins which were accepted everywhere. We saw the removal of the tolls which were levied by individual cities upon goods entering them, and in the days of our youth we had reason to hope that this process of freeing men and goods from restrictions would be further extended. Unfortunately, with all our so-called progress, in this matter the peoples of the world have moved backward.
During the last war, I had occasion to entertain a prominent American who was in London investigating war crimes. With great deliberation he explained to me that in the course of his investigations he had found that much bitterness was generated and built up between nations through restrictions which prevailed at frontiers, and he explained to me that in his opinion this animosity was one of the main contributory causes of war. I told him that there was no need to preach this doctrine to me I readily accepted it—which, pleased him. But I went on to say that if he considered such action a crime between neighbours, I assumed that he would indict his own country as one of the worst offenders. That, I am afraid, did not please him so much.
It is not my object to-day to argue a general case. I am sure that for the general ease I should have a great deal of support from noble Lords in all parts of the House. If this is so, we cannot but regret that even within the British Commonwealth it has not been possible to preserve the right of free movement and free exchange of goods. My purpose today is to raise, before it is too late, our future relationship with those territories which are rapidly developing, under our

1291
guidance, to a state of independence. Restrictions are so easy to apply and so difficult to remove. If we consider that the restrictions imposed upon free movement and the exchange of goods are undesirable, if we regret that within the British Commonwealth there are limitations and restrictions which are detrimental to the real and general interests of members, it is right that we should ask ourselves whether it is not possible to get down to a discussion with these developing territories, with the object of devising a better form of independent association with them than that enjoyed even between existing members of the Commonwealth. What I want at least to see is a common economic policy of freedom established and kept in being. I know that thinking along federal lines has not been particularly popular in this country. The attempt we made in the Simon Report to suggest a federal solution to India and Pakistan was, unfortunately, not accepted. This has left problems which are still unresolved between those two Dominions. I would plead for more thinking on this subject, and for more thinking as a matter of urgency.
My object in bringing in the Council of Europe is twofold. We are not the only European country with problems in developing African territories. Study together of these problems should contribute to a sense of unity among us, and as more than one speaker in the debate at Strasbourg said, co-ordination is necessary between European nations to prevent rival European nations from undermining each other's influence, to the detriment of African advancement. To-day, internationally worked out policies are more acceptable than those which are presented on the initiative of one great Power, which are often received with a certain amount of suspicion. France has its problem over Morocco and Belgium with the Congo. In their problems and ours the question arises of the relative importance of political advancement as compared with the importance of economic advancement. In our administrations there has been a tendency possibly to overstress the value of the political side of the picture.
These are reasons enough for us to engage in a joint study without any reserve. When reference was made at Strasbourg to the problems of local government, to capital investment and
1292
taxation, I felt that our Government representatives took too restricted a view of our responsibilities when they stressed that, to a greater or less extent, we had deprived ourselves of powers over these questions by delegation to the Legislatures of the new African federations—the Gold Coast and other African territories. Surely, this shows up the deficiencies in our relations with these territories. It pinpoints what I might call the drifting apart, to which I have been trying to draw attention. This drifting apart is not to make independence sure; it is fragmentation leading to weakness; and weakness cannot sustain independence in our modern world. In conclusion, may I say that I hope the Council of Europe's experts who are studying this problem will study very carefully the Report of the Royal Commission on East Africa. I hope that at the resumed debate at the next session of the Council at Strasbourg we shall hear quite a lot about this excellent Report. It sets out the principles which, if followed, will build for Africans a higher standard of living. They are the same principles of freedom within the rule of law which laid the foundation for improved standards of living in this country.
6.0 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a very few moments, but having had occasion to take the initiative in Strasbourg in regard to this question I feel that I must support as strongly as I can the suggestion contained in the last two lines of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The Question stresses that Her Majesty's Government should
"take the lead in the Council of Europe by inviting an overall European approach to the problem of African advancement."
Since the war, the future of Western Europe has been more closely linked with that of Africa and African development than ever before. When I say "Africa," there are other countries to which that term also applies—South Asia, Commonwealth countries, and so forth—but, as the Question refers to Africa, I use the term in that respect only. That particular theme runs right through the European movement, the tendency to European unity that has taken place since the war. For example, at The Hague Conference

1293
of 1948, sponsored and initiated by Mr. Churchill (as he then was), the theme was set out there all the time.
What is the theme of the post-war situation? Surely it is this: that the effect of the Second World War has been materially to alter the pattern of world trade. The erection of the Iron Curtain has broken the exchange between Central and Western Europe and Eastern Europe. The circumstances of the war and the fantastic development of the United States have produced a dollar problem and the outpouring of manufactures of agricultural products which have again altered the relationship between Europe and the West. There remain the South and the, generally speaking, non-dollar countries of the world. It is inevitable that there must be a much closer development of trade with the non-dollar world, including the British Dominions, than ever before, in order to create this new equilibrium in place of that which has been disturbed in both the East and the West.
If it is clear that there is to be a change of that kind, it is the task of statesmanship to expedite it as quickly as possible and to endeavour to ensure that there are no clashes of policy and no lack of co-ordination of policy in that direction. By expediting those changes the disturbance and trouble that might other-wise arise is saved to the world. Let me add, in passing, that there is another aspect of this question. There is an intensely political aspect. We all know what part the colonial question played prior to the war. But since the war Italy has lost all her colonies. Germany and Italy are "have not" nations and therefore, unless we are to have a recrudescence of the colonial question somewhere, if it is true that European interests as a whole are involved in the development of Africa, that fact must be taken account of by the nations which have overseas possessions associated with the development of Africa. This theme runs right through the European Movement. In the first year of the Assembly, the present Minister of Education was the rapporteur of the Economic Committee. If your Lordships take the trouble to look at the results you will see there that straight through there appears this theme about change of the pattern of trade. Let us get busy to try to develop it and see what can be done.
1294
In 1950, the Assembly invited observers from the Dorninion3. In 1951, as this issue was still hanging fire, it appointed a working party to examine this whole problem. In 1952, the working party produced what has come to be known as the Strasbourg Plan, which dealt, first of all, in general terms, with the co-ordination of policy between European countries and the overseas countries. It then proceeded to make a series of suggestions dealing with international trade, seeking, in the first place, to arrange that the removal of the quantitative restrictions by European action should be extended to the overseas countries and, later, when it was obvious that as soon as the quantitative restrictions were removed, tariffs should be the crucial issue and something should be done in the tariff direction. It is quite impossible for me to pursue these questions any further now, but one of the issues was common—a proposition to facilitate investment between all the countries of Western Europe and the countries of Africa and other parts of the world. Specific proposals were put forward to that effect.
There were also suggestions for planned development in which it might be possible for the capital of those countries, the "have not" countries, to be associated with that of the "have" countries. Such was the Strasbourg Plan. This was not a starry-eyed proposition. The Chairman of the Economic Committee was a retired Treasury civil servant known to many of your Lordships, Sir Cecil Kisch. The Committee had on its membership, on the British side, various people, including an experienced economic adviser to one of the "big five" banks. It was a powerful Committee and it produced this solid Report. Since 1952, there has been very slow progress. Prolonged examination took place. This Report has gone backwards and forwards between the O.E.E.C., and the Committee of the Council of Europe, and so on and so forth, from one body to another. This year, after two and a half years of discussion on the issue, the Economic Committee of the Council of Europe came to the conclusion that it was trying to push the thing on too broad a front, and therefore it decided to move in the direction of taking some of these items one at a time. Again, it is not possible to deal with that matter now, and I do not propose to pursue it. I will simply say

1295
that, whereas hitherto the Report has been discussed as a whole, the issues will now be raised from time to time individually in the spheres of trade, finance and industry.
In pressing Her Majesty's Government to take a favourable attitude towards all these suggestions for a European policy and European action in relation to Africa, I do not want it to be assumed that I am purely critical of what has been happening in the last few years. In one respect, Her Majesty's Government have led very effectively with regard to the overseas countries. I think I am right in saying that Britain is the only country which has specifically made the terms of the Convention of Human Rights apply to forty-three overseas associated countries. All I am asking is that, similarly, European co-operative action should take place in the economic sphere. That has not happened so far. On the economic side we have been hanging back. The answer that has been given has almost invariably been "We agree in principle. What you say is perfectly sound. We accept that. We are doing all that is humanly possible," and it is at that point that I think we should take a rather critical view. Indeed, when I hear that formula, it fills me with the greatest alarm because usually the next thing we hear are the words "Too late." That has happened frequently in regard to the European movement of the last five years. One is alarmed lest what has been happening before our eyes in the case of Cyprus should happen here.
My Lords, again I urge the Government to take a broad view of this problem of the development of African and similar territories, in the hope that, if action is taken in time on that sort of level, it will prevent the Colonial question from arising again in a somewhat slightly changed form that will divide Western Europe.
6.11 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for raising this important matter and for giving me the opportunity of stating the views of Her Majesty's Government. I should also like to thank him
1296
for his introductory remarks in which he particularised the points he had in mind. Before I deal with the points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Layton, have made, I should like to refer to the resolution which was passed by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in June, 1954. The resolution was that the Committee of Ministers should adopt the principle that the policy of European integration entails as a corollary co-operation in the interests of their common prosperity between metropolitan Powers, the overseas countries which have constitutional links with them and the other members of the Council of Europe. I hope not to fill the noble Lord, Lord Layton with alarm or despondency—he mentioned alarm, but I dare say despondency is associated with it—but I am bound to take this opportunity of reiterating that Her Majesty's Government concur in this statement of principle. I am afraid that really has alarmed the noble Lord. I think that one can believe in a principle without necessarily agreeing upon how the principle should be carried out. That, I am afraid, is where the noble Lord will probably find that we part company.
May I come back to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester? As I understand it, the noble Lord has primarily in mind the discussion in the Council of Europe of the relationships between the metropolitan countries and our overseas territories in Africa—obviously he has. The Strasbourg Plan and previous discussions in the Council have been particularly concerned with economic aspects of the relationship between the European and the African dependent territories, but this new proposal, if I understand it correctly, raises even wider issues. However before commenting on those wider issues perhaps I may be permitted to refer very briefly to the general question of "African advancement" which is contained in the Motion of the noble Lord. No tone can deny that the problems of development in Africa—political, racial, economic and social—are on a vast scale. In view of the enormous size of the continent, the comparatively recent emergence of some of the societies inhabiting it and the difficulties of the climate, this is perhaps not surprising. The fact that these great natural problems exist does not, of course, mean

1297
that advancement cannot take place; but it does have a considerable bearing upon the pace of the advance.
Fundamentally our policy towards our overseas territories in Africa is to assist and encourage local administrations, to develop and expand their economies, to encourage production, both for local consumption and for export, to develop the social services, and in general to help to create such economic and social conditions as will provide a sound basis for the ordered advance of the territories towards political self-government within the Commonwealth. On this subject it is trite and a platitute to say that we all know that this has been the policy of isuccessive Governments, but see no harm in repeating it because I think it is fundamental to this issue. In applying this policy we regard the interests of the local peoples as paramount. The role of the United Kingdom is to guide and assist them in their task. In terms not only of money, but also of skill and personal sacrifice and of devotion to a noble cause, the contribution of the United Kingdom has been enormous, and the progress made by the African territories in recent years by any standard has been remarkable.
We do not claim to have a monopoly of administrative wisdom in dealing with the problems of Africa. The fact that other colonial Powers approach these problems in a different way does not mean that they are necessarily wrong and that we are necessarily right, or vice versa, and we have the greatest respect for their varying views. Nevertheless, we are justly proud of our own achievements and are anxious to maintain the position of confidence which we believe our policy in Africa is creating in our own territories.
The constitutional progress towards self-government in these territories—as, for example, in the Gold Coast—is, I believe, creating an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence between this country and our British territories in Africa. It would therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, be indefensible to put these good relations in jeopardy by appearing to question the whole basis upon which they have been built up. I must be frank about this. This we feel might well be the consequences of discussing in
1298
the Council of Europe the fundamentals of our relationship with the dependent territories. Indeed, even in the more limited sphere of economic policy, we are doubtful of the appropriateness of the European approach. We do not believe that overseas investment in Africa can best be encouraged by centralised action on the part of the metropolitan Governments. The stimulation of overseas investment in the African territories depends fundamentally on the creation of suitable conditions in the territories themselves, and it is for all the local Governments concerned to work out their own policies in these matters and for sponsors of individual projects to see that overseas investors are made aware of the opportunities open to them.
This is not to say that we discourage European investment in the United Kingdom territories. On the contrary, we welcome it and we accept it on equal terms with other foreign investments. At the same time, there is no justification for the imposition of special privileges for a restricted group of European countries, and Her Majesty's Government could nor agree to subordinate the interests of the Colonies in this way. In our view, the extent to which the overseas territories may wish to encourage European invest-merit is a matter in which they themselves must have the predominant voice and in which their particular interests must be paramount. Here, may I digress for a moment? The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said that we always made, as it were, an excuse that we no longer control fully these territories. Of course that is true. How can you give people a greater measure of self-government unless they have a greater say in their own affairs and we have less say? That is the whole basis of the matter. We have never accepted that in the more advanced territories, they should have no say in their economic policy and should be told what they have to do.
We have repeatedly made it clear that in our view the British territories in Africa should be developed in the best interests of the people who live there. It is they who must, with guidance and assistance from us to the limit of our available resources of money, manpower and skill, initiate and carry through the developments which will raise their standards of living and bring them to political self-government. We cannot subscribe to

1299
the view that Africa is somehow a European preserve—as it were, a new world being created to redress the balance of the old.
As I have already observed, this does not mean in any way that we do not welcome the co-operation of other European Powers, nor does it mean that, remarkable though our progress in Africa has been in recent years, we are unwilling to learn in the technical and economic spheres from the wisdom and advice of other colonial Powers. We have not been content to work in isolation. International co-operation in the colonial field in Africa has grown rapidly since the war and it is certainly still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to welcome such co-operation. The Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa, with the Governments of Belgium, France, Portugal, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom as members, has been in existence for five years and is proving a valuable means of exchanging information and ideas on a very wide range of technical matters. The Commission, as the noble Lord will probably know, has organised a number of technical conferences at which all kinds of subjects have been covered—health, nutrition, labour, agriculture, animal husbandry, geology and so on—and has established as many as nineteen committees and bureaux for the dissemination of technical information. Then, the O.E.E.C. provides a forum for the discussion of economic problems in Africa which affect the European Powers, and there is a special Committee of that organisation—the Overseas Territories Committee—which devotes much of its attention to African problems.
In all these organisations we are, of course, keen and happy to play our part and, whilst learning from the technical progress which is being made in other Colonial territories in Africa, to share with other Powers the fruits of our own British colonial experience. We are very appreciative of all the assistance of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations and of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation which is just now being set up. We are equally grateful to our friends in the United States for the financial and technical assistance
1300
which they have given us. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will regard this as a very "dusty" answer, but I must say, frankly, and I am sure the noble Lord will understand, that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the existing machinery for international co-operation in colonial matters is adequate and that there is no need to invent new machinery and new institutions to achieve our objective. We believe that there may even be danger in so doing. I hope, therefore, that I have been able to convince noble Lords that there are good and sound reasons for our not taking a lead in the Council of Europe by inviting an overall European approach to the problem of African advancement.
I should like now to leave the European aspect and say a word about the very interesting suggestion of the noble Lord in regard to our relations with British overseas territories in Africa. He spoke of the danger of fragmentation and of the necessity for a re-examination of what he called the federal approach. Perhaps he was a little hard on us in saying that we turned our face against federalism. Perhaps I misinterpreted the noble Lord; but we have never done so. There is the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Federal Constitution of Nigeria; and coming up next year is a conference to try to produce a West Indian Federation. What the noble Lord really meant, perhaps, was federation in the context of ourselves and the colonial territories. We have not a closed mind on this matter and we are constantly trying to ensure that the best and closest bonds exist between ourselves and the colonial territories in Africa.
Again, I am bound to say that, on the whole, though federal relationships may be appropriate for other colonial Powers, I am not sure that they would necessarily suit the circumstances of the African territories. After all, our primary purpose is still to maintain the ties of our Commonwealth association—ties without any formalism but which have bound us in partnership with other members of the Commonwealth, bonds of friendship and mutual trust which have stood the test of time and adversity, and which will, we hope, be the pattern of our relationships with the self-governing African territories of the future. I believe that must still be our policy and, as I pointed out

1301
to the noble Lord, that is why we have delegated a great deal of responsibility to many of the African territories. We do not regard these developments as a drifting apart but rather as a means of strengthening the relationship of mutual confidence which it is our aim to foster. It is in this atmosphere that the problems of freedom of movement of peoples and goods, of which the noble Lord has spoken, have to be settled.
I am not entirely clear in my mind how the noble Lord's federal idea affects the question of freedom of trade and, while I should like to think further about that aspect, it seems to me that if the federal idea is to be applied to trade we may find ourselves up against some fairly difficult problems. I gather that what the noble Lord has in mind is some kind of customs union between ourselves and the self-governing territories in Africa. That would mean the exclusion of present members of the Commonwealth and the establishment of a tariff wall against other nations; and, to an extent, it would mean a renunciation of all our efforts in recent years towards liberalisation of trade. Such a policy might involve us in a breach of our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Of course, we wish to give every encouragement to trade between the United Kingdom and African territories, but the difficulties which I have mentioned are very formidable.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, it is not a customs union that I want, so much as a no-customs union.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, if we have a federation without any form of customs union I am not quite clear how that
1302
would work. However, we shall get into very deep waters if we follow this point, and perhaps we should discuss it later. We have not a closed mind on any of these matters and I shall be pleased to discuss the subject with the noble Lord. On the general principle, however, I do not feel that we could give a lead in the Council of Europe such as the noble Lord has asked us to give.

RABBITS (PROHIBITION OF SPREADING) BILL [H.L.]
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Merthyr, I beg leave to introduce a Bill entitled "An Act to prohibit the spreading of rabbits," and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Kinnaird.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DUNDEE CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

CROSBY CORPORATION BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on July 26 last discharged, and Bill committed.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past six o'clock.